According to sources, the Bruins have started talks with Seguin on a new contract. It will be interesting to see what the terms are because of Skinner and Hall's recent extensions. Where will Seguin's contract be? Closer to Skinner or Hall?

There's been discussions, said the 20-year-old forward.
It's looking good, and I'm looking forward to hopefully playing in Boston for many years. He went on to say that discussions on a new deal started after the season ended and they
definitely picked up quite heavily since then. Seguin will enter the final year of his entry-level contract in 2012-13 and will probably get an agreement that is similar to fellow 2010 draftees Taylor Hall (seven years at $6 million per) and Jeff Skinner (six years, $5.75 million per). He also commented that he isn't sure where he will play in the event of a lockout and that he is fully recovered from off-season surgery to repair a tendon in his left hand.

It's so hard trying to make anything out of this stuff as far as the cap goes. The teams know a lot of stuff we don't. Obviously, they're trying to "get ahead of" the next cba, or these contracts wouldn't be getting done now.
If the b's were the only ones operating this way...it would be one thing, however, it seems to be the norm....and...... oh yeah...the game is so broken the owners are considering shutting it down for a while.

This signing, like several before it, seem to indicate a lack of unanimity on the part of the Owners. They propose a 5 year max contract term, yet I count at least 11 recent contracts of 6 years or more. I realize that negotiating a contract is a give-and-take, but one would have expected the Owners to instruct their GMs: "nothing longer than 5 years".

The "5 yr max" proposal may have come after the big early July FA signings, but recent deals like Eberle and Seguin have come after the NHL's proposal containing the 5 year max clause.

49, I think that's part of why you are seeing these 6 and 7 year signings. The GMs are trying to lock their players up now in case that clause does actually go through. Obviously some GMs and owners aren't big on it.

Lucic and Rask next, Horton all though important to the team, now has concussions problems and is more replacable than any of the other top 6. Rask is the number one goalie, so of course they save money for him.

As for Ference, they said that they were planning on extending him, but I believe PC is smart enough to let him walk after this season.

I think PC knows something that we don't to have the confidence to sign guys to these deals while the CBA is up in the air. That being said, I like the deal. One less year and annually just slightly under Taylor Hall's deal. Right about where most on here thought it would be.

Lucic and Rask next, Horton all though important to the team, now has concussions problems and is more replacable than any of the other top 6. Rask is the number one goalie, so of course they save money for him.

As for Ference, they said that they were planning on extending him, but I believe PC is smart enough to let him walk after this season.

So is Seguins new contract identicle to Skinners? Can't remember.

Why would they sign Rask next? He just signed a one year deal and both he and Chiarelli have come out saying they agreed to a one year deal in order for him to prove he is a true #1 and to earn the longer term deal. I think this is a great idea especially when both parties buy into it. You want the years and money? Prove you are the real deal first.

This is such a sweet deal for the Bruins. He actually signed for less than his peers, and less than players like Patrick Kane signed for in their second contract a few years ago. With the talent he seems to posess and the way his play is developing, it's not unrealistic to say he could be among the game's very best scorers for the next 7 years. This is the kind of signing that can enable a team like the Bruins to ice a contender year after year. When other top scorers make 6, 7, 8+ mil per year, Boston gets a significant competitive cap advantage. I am ecstatic. My favorite Bruin sticking around, and at a (relative) great price!

Comments about the owners wanting 5-year max but not following what they want are confused about two things. The league doesn't want 5-year max, they want something like 7 or 8 year max contracts. You negotiate by asking for more than what you want - it's a simple concept. 6-year deals are hardly the concern, it's the 14 year monsters that are the problem. The other thing is that teams want to win and will use whatever they can within the rules to do so. I can't understand why so many can't grasp this concept. Teams are competitors, not a collective alliance. I'm sure the Bruins want a cap on contract lengths that applies to the whole league, but until that happens they will do whatever they can to help the Bruins, first and foremost. So will every other team. It's just like a goalie reducing their pads because it would be good for the game when no one else is doing it. Why on earth would they do that? You use every advantage you can until everyone collectively agrees to play by a new set of rules.